In an ex parte presentation of evidence resulting from the defendant's failure to appear at pre-trial, documentary evidence formally offered by the plaintiff and subsequently admitted by the trial court is properly considered in rendering judgment, even if the transcript of stenographic notes does not meticulously reflect the identification and marking of each specific exhibit during the witness's testimony; the rules on pre-marking and identification in A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC apply primarily to regular pre-trial proceedings where both parties participate.

Metrobank extended loans totaling P32,950,000.00 to Fadcor, Inc., secured by real estate mortgages over ten parcels of land and continuing surety agreements executed by individual respondents (Fadcor officers). Fadcor defaulted on its loan obligations.

• Metrobank granted Fadcor five loans totaling P32,950,000.00, evidenced by promissory notes.
• The loans were secured by two Real Estate Mortgages over ten parcels of land and an Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage, executed by Fadcor through its officers.
• Individual respondents (Fadcor officers) also executed two Continuing Surety Agreements, making themselves jointly and severally liable up to P90,000,000.00.
• Respondents defaulted, owing P32,350,594.12. Metrobank initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings under Act No. 3135.
• On July 31, 2001, the properties were sold at public auction to Metrobank as the highest bidder for P32,961,820.72.
• A deficiency of P17,479,371.86 remained after applying the auction proceeds. Metrobank demanded payment of this deficiency, but respondents failed to pay.
• Metrobank filed a complaint for recovery of the deficiency obligation.
• Respondents failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial and did not file a pre-trial brief, despite notice.
• The RTC ordered Metrobank to present evidence ex parte. Metrobank presented one witness and submitted documentary evidence (Exhibits "A" to "MM").
• Metrobank filed its Formal Offer of Evidence, which included Exhibits "A" to "MM".
• The RTC admitted Metrobank's evidence, including Exhibits "EE" to "MM" (which supported the deficiency computation).
• The RTC ruled in favor of Metrobank, ordering respondents to pay the deficiency plus interest and attorney's fees.

• The CA erred in reversing the RTC decision because the situation involved an ex parte presentation of evidence due to respondents' default at pre-trial, not a regular trial proceeding governed strictly by A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC regarding pre-marking.
• A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, which requires evidence to be identified and pre-marked during pre-trial, does not apply when no pre-trial is effectively conducted due to the defendant's absence.
• The documentary evidence (Exhibits "A" to "MM", including "EE" to "MM") was properly marked during the ex parte presentation, formally offered, and admitted by the RTC, making the CA's reliance on the TSN's alleged silence regarding their specific identification during testimony incorrect and overly technical.
• The RTC correctly allowed the ex parte presentation and rendered judgment based on the evidence presented and admitted, following Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
• The CA's finding that Exhibits "EE" to "MM" were not presented or identified is contradicted by the fact that they were marked, formally offered by Metrobank, and expressly admitted by the RTC in its Order dated October 25, 2005.

• (As inferred from the CA decision) The RTC erred in admitting Metrobank's Exhibits "EE" to "MM" because the TSN of the ex parte hearing did not show that these specific exhibits were presented and identified by the witness during her testimony.
• (As inferred from the CA decision) The admission of these exhibits violated A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, which requires evidence-in-chief to be identified and pre-marked during pre-trial, and allegedly prohibits the presentation and offer of evidence not so identified.
• (As inferred from the CA decision) Without Exhibits "EE" to "MM", Metrobank failed to prove the basis for the deficiency claim awarded by the RTC.

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision based on its finding that certain documentary evidence (Exhibits "EE" to "MM") admitted by the RTC was inadmissible because it was not explicitly shown to have been identified by the witness in the TSN of the ex parte hearing.
• Whether A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, regarding identification and pre-marking of evidence during pre-trial, applies strictly to an ex parte presentation of evidence resulting from the defendant's failure to appear at the pre-trial conference.

• Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision. The Supreme Court granted Metrobank's petition, reversed the CA decision, and affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
• The Supreme Court reasoned that the case involved an ex parte presentation of evidence allowed under Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court due to respondents' failure to appear at pre-trial. In such a scenario, the stringent requirement of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC concerning pre-marking and identification during a participated pre-trial does not strictly apply, as effectively no pre-trial marking occurred due to respondents' default.
• The Court emphasized that the records clearly showed the questioned exhibits ("EE" to "MM") were marked during the ex parte hearing, formally offered by Metrobank, and explicitly admitted by the RTC in its order. The formal offer and the court's admission of the evidence are the crucial factors.
• The CA's reliance solely on the perceived silence of the TSN regarding the specific identification of each exhibit during the witness's testimony was deemed incorrect and overly restrictive, especially given the ex parte nature of the proceedings where respondents had forfeited their opportunity to object or rebut.
• By failing to appear at pre-trial, respondents assumed the risk of plaintiff presenting evidence ex parte without objection, leading to a judgment based on that uncontroverted evidence.

• Effect of Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial (Rules of Court, Rule 18, Section 5): This rule provides that the failure of the defendant to appear at the pre-trial shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof. The Court applied this rule directly, stating the RTC correctly allowed Metrobank's ex parte presentation after respondents failed to appear, validating the subsequent proceedings and judgment based on the evidence presented.
• Pre-Trial Guidelines (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC): These guidelines mandate parties to submit pre-trial briefs containing, among others, the documents or exhibits to be presented (which should be identified and pre-marked), and state that generally, no evidence shall be allowed during trial other than those identified and pre-marked during pre-trial, except for good cause. The Court distinguished the application of this rule, holding that its strictures regarding pre-marking and identification primarily apply to standard pre-trials where parties participate, not to situations where ex parte presentation is necessitated by a party's default at the pre-trial stage itself.
• Review of Facts under Rule 45: As a general rule, petitions for review under Rule 45 only raise questions of law. However, the Court invoked the exception allowing review of factual findings when the findings of the CA conflict with those of the trial court. This conflict between the RTC's admission of evidence and the CA's rejection of it justified the Supreme Court's review of the facts surrounding the evidence presentation and admission.
• Consequence of Default at Pre-trial: Failure of a defendant to appear at pre-trial leads to the plaintiff presenting evidence ex parte, without objection from the defendant, potentially resulting in a judgment favoring the plaintiff as the defendant forfeits the opportunity to rebut or present contrary evidence. The Court cited The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Company v. Enario to emphasize the detrimental consequences for the defaulting defendant.

• "One must not deviate from the fact that this case involves an ex parte presentation of evidence allowed by the RTC after the respondents herein failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference and submit a pre-trial brief despite receipt of the Order of the same court."
• "Thus, the CA's ruling that Exhibits 'EE' to 'MM' should not have been considered simply because the TSN does not reflect that those evidence were presented and identified is mind-boggling because they could not have been marked had they not been presented during the ex parte hearing where the lone witness for the petitioner was able to testify."
• "[T]he legal ramification of defendant's failure to appear for pre-trial is still detrimental to him while beneficial to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is given the privilege to present his evidence without objection from the defendant, the likelihood being that the court will decide in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant having forfeited the opportunity to rebut or present its own evidence." (Citing The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Company v. Enario)

• Spouses Almendrala v. Spouses Ngo (508 Phil. 305 (2005)): Cited to enumerate the exceptions to the general rule that only questions of law can be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45. It was invoked because the factual findings of the RTC and CA were conflicting, justifying the Supreme Court's review of the facts.
• The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Company v. Joseph Enario (645 Phil. 166 (2010)): Cited to explain the legal consequences of a defendant's failure to appear at pre-trial, specifically highlighting that the plaintiff gets to present evidence ex parte without objection, and the defendant forfeits the chance to rebut, making a judgment in favor of the plaintiff likely. This supported the SC's ruling that respondents bore the risk associated with their non-appearance.
• Triumph International (Phils.), Inc. v. Ramon L. Apostol (607 Phil. 157 (2009)): Cited as authority for the general rule that Rule 45 petitions should only raise questions of law.
• The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals (428 SCRA 79 (2004)), Aguirre v. Court of Appeals (466 Phil. 32 (2004)), C & S Fishfarm Corporation v. Court of Appeals (442 Phil 279 (2002)): Cited within the Almendrala citation as further examples supporting the exceptions to the rule limiting Rule 45 petitions to questions of law.

• Rules of Court, Rule 45 (Review on Certiorari): The basis for Metrobank's petition to the Supreme Court.
• Rules of Court, Rule 18, Section 4 (Appearance of parties): Cited to establish the duty of parties and counsel to appear at pre-trial.
• Rules of Court, Rule 18, Section 5 (Effect of failure to appear): The legal basis invoked by the RTC (and affirmed by the SC) for allowing Metrobank to present evidence ex parte due to respondents' failure to appear at pre-trial.
• Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 03-1-09-SC (Guidelines on Pre-trial): Specifically, Section I(A)(2)(d) concerning the requirement to list documents/exhibits in the pre-trial brief and the limitation on presenting evidence not identified/pre-marked during pre-trial. The SC interpreted the scope and application of this rule in the context of an ex parte presentation due to default.
• Act No. 3135, as amended (Extrajudicial Foreclosure): Mentioned as the law under which the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties was conducted.